Mohammad Morsi Egypts president has sacked all the army top brass as a follow up to the deaths of Egyptian police in an attack by Islamists on a Sinai border position. This has all happened very quickly and is reminiscent of the way Erdogan purged the military top brass in Turkey.

The question is whether or not the western powers will persist in the belief the Arab spring will bring democracy, and whether U.S aid to Egypt will be contingent on Egypt protecting minorities and honoring the camp David peace agreement.

The Arab Spring, as I understand it (which is frankly not too well), is an upheaval which might produce one of a number of results. Democracy is one, military dictatorship is another, Islamic fundamentalist regimes are a third. Each country will be different, and may pass through more than one of these stages. In brief, it is difficult to predict.

US attitudes may well depend on who is the next President... and even on who is in power in Israel.

(I think I've pretty well covered myself, haven't I?)

The Arab Spring, as I understand it (which is frankly not too well), is an upheaval which might produce one of a number of results. Democracy is one, military dictatorship is another, Islamic fundamentalist regimes are a third. Each country will be different, and may pass through more than one of these stages. In brief, it is difficult to predict.

US attitudes may well depend on who is the next President... and even on who is in power in Israel.

(I think I've pretty well covered myself, haven't I?)

Yes indeed. Autocracy, Theocracy or Democracy. But what odds would you give to each? In order to answer this I think a clear definition of democracy is necessary. I would suggest it is not simply arranging a poll of the entire population and letting the majority rule. There has to be the intention for the victors not to murder or persecute the losers but to try and benefit all the citizens of the nation in as much is possible. Of course democracies are not perfect and interest groups feather their nest, but even with a fledgling democracy like Thailand we don't alternate between red shirts and yellow shirts being hung from lamp posts.

Egypt no doubt had some elements wanting an inclusive western style democracy, but they were in the minority and I see the odds of minorities not suffering greatly as a remote bet. Nasser knew this dynamic when there was a coup to depose King Faroukh. After making temporary alliance with the Islamists he crushed them, as he had to do, in order to rule. Iran is another case in point, The Shah was deposed by an alliance of theocrats and left wing democrats. The latter ended up swinging from lamp posts as theocracy won.

To sum up I suspect in order for democracy to evolve in the middle east it needs that rare beast the benevolent dictator to crush religious and sectarian power bases and enforce a national identity for a long time. Tragically I think this is unraveling in Turkey now, as for Egypt, it is said that democracies don't go to war against each other, perhaps Israel will be the litmus test there.

I am struck by one thing in all this.

With all of Obama's so called brilliant maneuvering on his foreign policy, we now have Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood in charge of BOTH the government and the military.

Obama threw Mubarak under the bus just like Carter did with the Shah of Iran. Look where that led us.

Democracy is a word which covers a multitude of different regimes. I don't think any one country will run its government exactly like any other.

Benevolent dictator? Does such a beast exist? Maybe Lee Kuan Yew... and he dressed it up as democracy.

I am struck by one thing in all this.

With all of Obama's so called brilliant maneuvering on his foreign policy, we now have Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood in charge of BOTH the government and the military.

Obama threw Mubarak under the bus just like Carter did with the Shah of Iran. Look where that led us.

It just keeps getting better and better.

http://www.businessinsider.com/egypt-protest-pictures-2013-6

I am struck by one thing in all this.

With all of Obama's so called brilliant maneuvering on his foreign policy, we now have Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood in charge of BOTH the government and the military.

Obama threw Mubarak under the bus just like Carter did with the Shah of Iran. Look where that led us.

It just keeps getting better and better.

http://www.businessinsider.com/egypt-protest-pictures-2013-6

June 29, 2013

A Light Fails In Egypt

Walter Russell Mead

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/06/29/turbulence-ahead-for-egypt/

There are several similarities between Turkey and Egypt.

Both were ruled by a despot (Turkey's Caliphate and Egypt's Farouk) who was overthrown by a social minded military leader.

Both then promoted the army to act as the barrier between religious opinion and a secular state.

Now it seems that both are falling to governance by the religious.

We have seen that happen in Iran and Afghanistan - and the results of such domination. The same thing happened in Spain after the expulsion of the Arabs and consolidation of the various smaller states in the late 1400's / early 1500's. Blood and torture were commonplace.

Religion should not be the heart of government, although it should be in the hearts of those who govern.

I suspect, as is so often the case in politics, not being in power can be actually preferable to being there. Actually there is a possible positive to the Arab spring if in the medium term the religious nutcases are in power for long enough they do a lot of damage to their own credibility. Your remarks on Turkey are well made, Erdogan is finally getting major opposition for going too far.

http://news.yahoo.com/egypt-protesters-storm-muslim-brotherhood-hq-095733433.html

Here is the actual story. Not sure what kind of anti-Obama fictions y'all are talking about:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/protesters-ransack-muslim-brotherhood-hq-demand-morsis-resignation/2013/07/01/f3f79698-e23c-11e2-a11e-c2ea876a8f30_story.html

CAIRO — Egypt’s powerful military issued an ultimatum to the government and its opposition on Monday: resolve the crisis that has pitted hundreds of thousands of President Mohamed Morsi’s opponents against his supporters and brought this country to a political standstill — or the military will announce its own solution.

It would seem that Morsi has rejected the general's ultimatum

Here is the actual story. Not sure what kind of anti-Obama fictions y'all are talking about:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/protesters-ransack-muslim-brotherhood-hq-demand-morsis-resignation/2013/07/01/f3f79698-e23c-11e2-a11e-c2ea876a8f30_story.html

CAIRO — Egypt’s powerful military issued an ultimatum to the government and its opposition on Monday: resolve the crisis that has pitted hundreds of thousands of President Mohamed Morsi’s opponents against his supporters and brought this country to a political standstill — or the military will announce its own solution.

It is common knowledge Obama threw Mubarak under a bus, from the moment he insisted on the Muslim Brotherhood attending his 2009 Cairo speech the chips were down. Now you have 18 million people calling for Morsi to go as the police shoot unarmed demonstrators, and Obama calls for 'restraint'. The secularists in Egypt seem in little doubt as to where Morsi is getting support, indeed his criticism of the army ultimatum can be read as a call for support from Obama by way of threatening sanctions, we shall see.

The Arab Spring, as I understand it (which is frankly not too well), is an upheaval which might produce one of a number of results. Democracy is one, military dictatorship is another, Islamic fundamentalist regimes are a third. Each country will be different, and may pass through more than one of these stages. In brief, it is difficult to predict.

Seems that you may need to find a forth option. Not happy with dictatorship, the people of Egypt revolted. Not happy with a democratically elected theocracy, the people of Egypt revolted. One wonders what the people of Egypt do want... Perhaps a country where people are free to believe what they wish but for that belief to be a personal belief, as it should be, and for it to be put to one side when representing the population. Morsi showed in startling colours that he was unable to do that which resulted in his ultimate downfall. The so called 'Arab spring' is laughable and very much akin to what is known as freedom of belief within the context of it's core. The Arab spring has resulted in exchanging a corporeal dictator for a mind forged dictator. What do people do when they are given freedom of belief? Freedom of thought crime? They impose on themselves a mind forged dictator in the guise of a god and therefore throw this new found freedom of belief/ freedom of thought crime in the trash.

Other countries in the region are watching Egypt, countries where the population is both youthful and well educated. Iran IS being dragged forward and it knows it is but rather than try to stop it (bad idea), it's putting its energy into keeping it as slow as it can. I'm not sure that it can placate the population for much longer even after the recent elections. The fella who got the most votes [sic] is still mad as a bag of spanners but less so that the rest. I can't see it lasting long if Egypt get their act together.

It would seem that Morsi has rejected the general's ultimatum

And now the generals have rejected Morsi. Here we go again!

The concept of democracy is different in different cultures.

Egypt produced Gamal Abdul Nasser, who was the hero of Muammar Gaddafi.

In Libya, Egypt's neighbour, the democratic process was like a family tree. Each group of citizens, say the residents in one street, or the workers in one hospital, would elect a representative from among themselves to go to a local committee to discuss local matters. From there more delegates would be elected to go to regional committees, where regional matters would be discussed, and from where national representatives would be selected to attend the national committee.

Thus policy would be based upon decisions made at various levels, to suit what they believe to be majority representatives. The idea that only elite groups (members of national political parties) should appoint elite people (candidates on lists sent down from the HQs of political parties) for election - to represent the views of the electorate - sounds ludicrous to them, although it is the way we vote for our unrepresentative representatives. In our system the elected representatives do not represent our views, but the views of a political party - of which there are usually only two or three major parties in contention to govern us and impose their ideas upon us all. We have no say in the policy-making of these parties. Even the annual convention of each party - attended by political activists from the constiuencies - only rubber-stamp the policy decisions of a small political elite.

Good luck to Egypt - I hope they manage to form a truly representative democracy in time.

Looks like the title of this post will need to change to something more like:

Egypt's General Sisi does a Sonsuradej, and Sacks Autocratic Political Brass

3 weeks can be a long time in Egyptian politics...Now how can Obama be blamed for this turn of events?

Must be providing some serious food for thought in Tehran, Beijing and many other places run by authoritarian regimes.

The Egyptian army threw out King Farouk (led by Colonel Nasser) and has had some sort of hand in the governance of the country since then - usually as a stabilising influence.

When Anwar Sadat was shot the remainder of the army stood to and kept the country quiet.

Admittedly Hosni Mubarrak was allowed too much freedom of action and so the people revolted. But the army did not suppress the movement, it waited until the right moment and then removed Mubarrak and allowed a civil committee to develop a new constitution. It then supported free elections.

The victor of those free elections has not followed the constitution, but has promoted an Islamic agenda instead. Although he was known to be a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood before the election, it would appear that the majority of Egyptians expected that he would work within the constitution - even though he would be on the right of the electorate.

However he became autocratic, within the first few months of being voted into power, and this was not what many Egyptians anticipated. (Maybe the younger ones, who had known nothing but Hosni Mubarrak in the top spot, expected everything to be like Europe or North America from Day 1).

Democracy is not just getting the vote. There must be a free press, the right to free speech, TV that is not controlled by one group, the right to free assembly, all of which should really come before the election of representatives. This had not happened in Egypt and after Morsi came to power was curtailed very strongly.

We have idiot politicians in the UK such as William Haig (or young slaphead) who do not really understand the difference between democracy in the UK - started in a very small way in the 13th century with Magna Carta, very slowly grown through the remaining Plantagenets and Tudors over 4 centuries, accelerated through the reign of the Stuarts and the Civil War for another century, then consolidated during the Hapsburgs and Victoria, which was another 200 years - and newly found freedom on the streets of North African towns. In all it took us seven centuries to go from one-man rule to one-man one-vote. And we expect the Arabs and Egyptians to do it in six weeks.

The Egyptian army threw out King Farouk (led by Colonel Nasser) and has had some sort of hand in the governance of the country since then - usually as a stabilising influence.

When Anwar Sadat was shot the remainder of the army stood to and kept the country quiet.

Admittedly Hosni Mubarrak was allowed too much freedom of action and so the people revolted. But the army did not suppress the movement, it waited until the right moment and then removed Mubarrak and allowed a civil committee to develop a new constitution. It then supported free elections.

The victor of those free elections has not followed the constitution, but has promoted an Islamic agenda instead. Although he was known to be a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood before the election, it would appear that the majority of Egyptians expected that he would work within the constitution - even though he would be on the right of the electorate.

However he became autocratic, within the first few months of being voted into power, and this was not what many Egyptians anticipated. (Maybe the younger ones, who had known nothing but Hosni Mubarrak in the top spot, expected everything to be like Europe or North America from Day 1).

Democracy is not just getting the vote. There must be a free press, the right to free speech, TV that is not controlled by one group, the right to free assembly, all of which should really come before the election of representatives. This had not happened in Egypt and after Morsi came to power was curtailed very strongly.

We have idiot politicians in the UK such as William Haig (or young slaphead) who do not really understand the difference between democracy in the UK - started in a very small way in the 13th century with Magna Carta, very slowly grown through the remaining Plantagenets and Tudors over 4 centuries, accelerated through the reign of the Stuarts and the Civil War for another century, then consolidated during the Hapsburgs and Victoria, which was another 200 years - and newly found freedom on the streets of North African towns. In all it took us seven centuries to go from one-man rule to one-man one-vote. And we expect the Arabs and Egyptians to do it in six weeks.

I think your comments about democracy are very pertinent. It's been a catchword for so long that nobody really thinks what it means. After 800 years, Britain has somehow still not got it right. The US, for all it trumpets democracy wherever it goes, claims it is NOT a democracy (it's a constitutional republic, whatever that is)... and I would hate to disagree with it.

The successful democracies are the rather small ones which also make the least noise.... and also have the best-educated electorates. Finland, Switzerland, the Benelux countries, most of Scandinavia. Singapore in our part of the world.... but that's a dictatorship in disguise.

There is little hope for true democracy (whatever that is) in the recently 'free' countries of North Africa and the Middle East, let alone the behemoths of South Asia. Education has to come first.

Here is the White house statement.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/07/03/statement-president-barack-obama-egypt

The United States is monitoring the very fluid situation in Egypt, and we believe that ultimately the future of Egypt can only be determined by the Egyptian people. Nevertheless, we are deeply concerned by the decision of the Egyptian Armed Forces to remove President Morsy and suspend the Egyptian constitution. I now call on the Egyptian military to move quickly and responsibly to return full authority back to a democratically elected civilian government as soon as possible through an inclusive and transparent process, and to avoid any arbitrary arrests of President Morsy and his supporters. Given today’s developments, I have also directed the relevant departments and agencies to review the implications under U.S. law for our assistance to the Government of Egypt.

Note there was no review of U.S law for assistance to an administration that turned a blind eye to rape,murder, persecution of minorities, turning Sinai into a festering hotbed of extremists etc, just the supply of F16s.

As for democratically elected, before pro Muslim brotherhood elements in the White house point the Obamatron at the wrong side of history yet again perhaps the U.S should consider exactly what constitutes democracy other than a show of hands.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3913/the_egyptian_people_understand_democracy

His short tenure was marked by conflict, lack of consensus building and, with his decrees, an attempt to subvert democratic norms like accountability, and rule of law, let alone checks and balances.

Now where have we seen that before.

The 'Obamatron'? How old are you?

Well the brotherhood have engaged their primary weapon. More than 500 dead and no thread yet in world news, so I thought I'd resurrect this.

http://www.debka.com/article/23197/US-Egyptian-relations-on-the-rocks-El-Sisi-wouldn%E2%80%99t-accept-Obama%E2%80%99s-phone-call

Apparently El-Sisi is refusing to take calls from Obama, I suspect this has something to do with recent talks with Putin as well as Saudi Arabia bankrolling Egypt preempting any withdrawal of U.S funding.

Bad name for an army General, though, isn't it?

Bad name for an army General, though, isn't it?

Lapsing into the infantile....

There was a Russian admiral in Napoleonic times who rejoiced in the name of Tshitshagarov (with a silent T no less)!

Bad name for an army General, though, isn't it?

Lapsing into the infantile....

There was a Russian admiral in Napoleonic times who rejoiced in the name of Tshitshagarov (with a silent T no less)!

You're making that up

Bad name for an army General, though, isn't it?

Lapsing into the infantile....

There was a Russian admiral in Napoleonic times who rejoiced in the name of Tshitshagarov (with a silent T no less)!

You're making that up

continuing with the nursery level humour...

the conqueror of Singapore in 1942?

General Tomoyuki Yamashita

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomoyuki_Yamashita

Egypt'S Morsi Does An Erdogan And Sacks Army Top Brass.

and now the army does a Mubarak on him

Egypt'S Morsi Does An Erdogan And Sacks Army Top Brass.

and now the army does a Mubarak on him

Or Nasser, to be more accurate, Mubarak was Farouked by Obama.

Does "Farouked" translate as stabbed in the back?

Does "Farouked" translate as stabbed in the back?

King Farouk owed his position to the British, thus the US had to remove him, which they did by backing Nasser and the army.

King Idriss Senoussi owed his position to the British, thus the US had to remove him, which they did by backing Ghaddafi and the army.

In both cases the US then expected to gain significant influence in the Eastern Mediterranean, but both leaders turned to Cold War Russia for support and dumped the Americans.

This is the nub of the 'special relationship' between the UK and the US.

Does "Farouked" translate as stabbed in the back?

King Farouk owed his position to the British, thus the US had to remove him, which they did by backing Nasser and the army.

King Idriss Senoussi owed his position to the British, thus the US had to remove him, which they did by backing Ghaddafi and the army.

In both cases the US then expected to gain significant influence in the Eastern Mediterranean, but both leaders turned to Cold War Russia for support and dumped the Americans.

This is the nub of the 'special relationship' between the UK and the US.

Slightly unfair criticism.

Indeed Farouk's overthrow in 1952 was part of the US anti-colonial policy that also saw it support the Viet Minh against the French 1942-46 amongst others, as it focused on the right to self-determination and not supporting unrepresentative, repressive regimes.

However as the Cold War kicked in such idealism soon went by the board and more of an "any port in a storm" attitude came into effect with realpolitik being paramount over more edifying, altruistic motives. Hence the overthrow of Idris in Libya is highly unlikely to have been inspired by the US, especially given the discovery of significant oil reserves in the late 1950's. Idris got caught in the Arab nationalist wave post the 1967 Arab-Israel war.

the changed nature of the US attitude is best summed up by the Baghdad Pact of 1955 when another British created kingdom (Faisal's Iraq) became part of the anti-communist central Asian US alliance. Certainly Faisal's overthrow and murder in 1958 did not suit the US.